A Short Treatise on the Early History of Illyriad
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5454
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:35
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A Short Treatise on the Early History of Illyriad
Posted By: John Louis
Subject: A Short Treatise on the Early History of Illyriad
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 01:09
|
A Short Treatise on the Early History of Illyriad (according to John Louis) I want to start by stating that this post is my creation and mine alone. It is not endorsed by NC or H? or anybody else. These are my views, however, and I believe those who have ears will hear and those who have eyes will see (yet many will remain both deaf and blind) – others may even agree with what I say but not vocalize their agreement for fear of reprisal or even because they just do not care what others think anymore. There will also be some who are not deaf or blind yet will mock, ridicule or even try to discredit this post – nothing can be done to prevent that (they have their own agenda). In any event, here goes: Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, Illyriad was created by the forces that be. Many came to populate the lands. Slowly the many peoples of Illyriad settled down and built up their cities. At the same time, those who shared similar views gathered together and created alliances which reflected their political ideologies. Players and alliances alike prospered and grew, and this was a good thing. As time went on certain players and alliances started to develop at a faster pace than others. Eventually, bigger alliances had the clout to dominate this game and force their will on others – this was not so good. During this time an alliance called Harmless ("H?") was formed and, believe it or not, it stood as a beacon of light and example for others. There are those who proliferate the message that, actually, H? is quite evil, it tried to dominate the server and imposed its will on others. Although this myth has grown of late, a little investigation and exploration of now dead alliances can validate that H? at least represented (more or less) everything that people used to love about Illyriad – namely, protecting smaller players and preventing ruthless soldiers of fortune from dominating the server. Words are wind, some might say, but I bring you more than words and hot air. Exhibit 1: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/1 The above is a link to the H? alliance page. People should take the time to actually read what it says. It is good stuff and represents ideals that most players (I believe) would accept to be excellent values for all the Illyriad community (if you are not a warmonger, that is). Some may now ask, well who were The White Company and, indeed, The Black Company. These were mercenary alliances, warmakers and sellswords. They had no peaceful values and yearned to become a dominant force within Illyriad. Interesting to note, they were totally destroyed by H? and Illyriad became a safer place to live in as a result. I ask that interested players actually look at these alliance pages to see what they represented. Exhibit 2: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/7 Exhibit 3: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/23 Nothing remains of these alliances because of the early wars fought so long ago. It is important to note that Illyriad developed a reputation for being a very friendly game with helpful players. It was very different from games like Evony and this was recognized by many gaming magazines/websites. Exhibit 4: http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/05/mmobility-illyriad-a-kingdom-in-your-pocket/ Exhibit 5:http://vagary.tv/archives/15673 And so it was that Illyriad was set apart from other games, one key virtue being the Illy community itself. Notwithstanding, it became apparent that the only way to maintain peace would be with the capacity to enforce that peace militarily if need be (yes, somewhat ironic I know). In my view this was one of the reasons for the creation of the Night Crusaders ("NC") alliance – a strong military arm. NC became extremely effective and proceeded to purge Illyriad of heretics hungry for war wherever they could find them (irony again...perhaps, but it got the job done and peace, for the large part, was maintained in Illyriad). For the sake of completeness, I should stress that NC is in fact a military alliance and enjoys fighting a good fight. It certainly makes the game a whole lot more fun when you can explore all aspects of gameplay. There is a time and place for warfare, yet there should be no place for the bullying of small players and alliances who are themselves peaceful. Also, I must point out that naturally there have been many wars where H? and NC have not been involved (and some where one but not the other has participated). H? and NC, I understand, have never wanted to be a UN-like entity and on many occasions have pointedly refused to become involved in disputes. However, I am not going to go into these other wars and the issues surrounding them as otherwise there would be no end to my writing (perhaps another day). Anyway, as time went on other alliances rose and fell, yet H? remained constant. Nonetheless, the time came when other alliances also became big and strong and started to impose their will on smaller, weaker alliances. When H? decided to assist the victims of these other alliances it did so swiftly and decisively. Their justification was to prevent the bullying of smaller alliances, and they did this very effectively indeed. This led to the more recent Illyriad wars which have not yet been totally forgotten. Nonetheless, the aggressors were decisively defeated as well, however, they were not obliterated as White and Black had been as they were not inherently 'evil' alliances, they were just alliances who had 'evil' players/leaders within. H? allowed the alliances to rebuild and live on, once the bad apples had been removed. Even the bad apples were not destroyed, though now it may seem that they should have been. They were totally defeated and so they surrendered. Their surrender was accepted and after they compensated for these wars, they were allowed to get on with their lives. At some point in time rare harvestable goods were introduced to Illyriad. Although this was, in my view, a great addition, it became a new cause for friction and concern within the Illy community. Many players fought others over the right to harvest these goods. Scarcity of certain goods meant that in order to maintain an advantage the said resources needed to either be traded freely or totally controlled by whole alliances (as far as possible). I believe that this was a further catalyst for another round of wars, coupled by resentment which had festered among the previous losers. H? and her allies once more proved to be victorious and peace was restored. Again, alliances were not totally dismantled and once war reparations were made by the losing sides things were allowed to return to 'normal', albeit with even more bitterness left to fester among those losers. What should have been done, but was impossible due to in-game limitations, was that the first-born son (or daughter, why not) of the losers should have been given to the winners as wards (ok, hostages really) so as to prevent a re-enactment of history. This would have enabled a permanent peace, or at least a greater lasting peace and much more far reaching. Alas, it is simply not possible to do this in Illyriad. (Yes, I am a Game of Thrones fan, does it show?) Regardless, those losers licked their wounds and went into hiding, yet they would live to fight another day (again). This, I think, now brings us full circle to the present state of affairs. It is submitted that, in light of the above, the present war situation can be better understood. Regardless of what happens, I want to try and preserve the historical facts as far as possible. Already history is being changed and many new players may never know the truth of Illyriad's past. Those who have ears, let them hear. Those who have eyes, let them see. |
Replies:
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 01:53
| Good for a laugh. Would read again. Though this really belongs http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/fiction_forum31.html" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: Taelin
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 07:59
|
My Shorter Oxford has this to say about 'Treatise': 1. A book or writing which treats of some particular subject; now always,one containing a methodical discussion or exposition of the principles of the subject. 2. A story, tale or narrative - 1605. 3. Negotiation, discussion of terms; arrangement of terms - 1641. Aurordan may well be correct that it is intended in the spirit of the second meaning and certainly there is a commendable imaginative quality to much of it which is supportive of that interpretation. It is obviously fanciful to think that it is really a methodical discussion of principles - although I grant that the author may intend it simply as a pastiche - in which case the sly humour of the concept does amuse. My preferred interpretation is that this is in fact the 1641 usage: in which case I am sure we can come to an arrangement.
|
Posted By: Diomedes
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 08:21
|
Certainly, this is a whimsical and colourful view of Illy history, which, as is always the case with history, is biased by the perspective of the teller-of-the-tale. I very much enjoyed the read, but will not be tempted to engage in debate on this history's veracity. Well told, JL  ------------- "Walk in the way of the good, for the righteous will dwell in the land" |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 09:15
|
A nice tale, but a bit too beautified imho, because not only you cannot attribute everything good on one side only, but telling the tale like that actually usurps the effort of various other alliances through the time that helped fulfill that newbie friendly environment in illyriad, which is not a good thing to do ... So, if you do not mind, I'll put a soundtrack to the tale to balance things out : http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=_hMSzggJMJE" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=_hMSzggJMJE And this is something that both sides of any conflict, and any time, should listen to 
|
Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 11:08
|
Nicely written, and quite entertaining - although, as already mentioned, very one sided. But you're entitled to your opinion of course... I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that the sentiments in the OP are not shared by a large percentage of the Illy population. And I trust that the new players you refer to will seek a balanced view of the history of Illyriad, rather than rely upon a single (albeit eloquent) post. I for one will not be petitioning for the beatification of NC and H? members on the back of this post.... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Shadar Logoth
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 11:28
|
Sorry John Louis, nice one sided story but I miss research into the past of Illy, the real past.
Furthermore, pointing to some links doesn't make the contents of those links true.
For the longest time I never considered myself an enemy of H? and there was a time when I even respected them.
That respect has taken a mighty tumble however. No one denies H? did some good things in the past, but most older players also know that H? did a lot wrong to. Unfortunately, they became progressively "wrong" instead of "good" which imho opinion lead to this current war.
Anyway, to each his own.
It was at least an entertaining read and I will try and stay positive by assuming that this was an honest effort at trying to inform people about what you think is the trueth.
------------- More Orc, less talking! All that is said is my own opinion. I am not a leader nor voice for Invictus. I will always abide by Invictus's rules. |
Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 13:21
Who gave NC the right to purge "heretics" from Illy? More to the point, who gave NC/H? the right to decide who is considered a warmongering heretic, and who is a noble pacifist crusader (who is ironically, waging war to destroy those who want war)? Protecting newbs is very much different from actively seeking out and destroying those who you suspect of wanting to harm newbs... Hubris and arrogance substituting for truth, indeed.
|
John Louis wrote:Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 20:06
This being the mostly benevolent realm of the mostly non-interfering King Sigurd, you do not need anybody to give you a right. You do what you think is right (or beneficial to your goals). Since Illyriad would die of boredom if there were no disagreements, this is a Good Thing® |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 21:28
| People have been purging "heretics" from this game since it began. NC is nothing new, they just happened to be pretty damn good at it. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 21:34
|
Surely, with H? doing so much good, no alliance will want to remove them from their power of authority. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 21:50
Having already disagreed with the topic and its contents I have to say that actual history totally disagrees with that statement since many benevolent people ended up being hated and persecuted ( Socrates, anyone .?. :p ). "Doing good" (or trying to) does not mean that "people will like you" ...  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 22:43
|
I will very pointedly avoid any analogy involving a religous context as
I've no right to think nearly that highly of myself nor my alliance. But no man will be more hated, reviled, and slandered
than he who is good/right in the eyes of them who are not. Add a
little jealousy and political power, and there's your tinderbox. It was refreshing to see someone taking a moment to remember what Harmless is actually about even at a superficial level, though I do need to point out a couple very important corrections:
There is certainly plenty of data in these forums and elsewhere that can establish what actual events took place and how many of the alliances involved actually behaved, including ourselves. There would be far more if the publication of in-game mail and other communications were allowed here. But you will have to sift through a lot of opinion profusely offered and later by the same sources presented as representing popular opinion by reason of volume. Many new players will confuse the loudest voice with the widest-held opinion, but this is only a problem for a thriving game with a steady influx of new players. If you are a new player, all you really need is to remember one simple principle: perspective is a product of motive. As for the rest of us, nothing is so telling as the effort my enemies place on (re)shaping that public opinion. Is actual public opinion changing? Maybe a little, and certainly more as time passes and one voice dominates the conversation. But I know what really shifted the balance of power, and that was plain old betrayal, not some great shift toward evil in an alliance was only ever becoming less involved in the game and its political landscape. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 20 Feb 2014 at 23:45
|
When such a large number of players actively take up arms in order to remove your power and influence from the game as a whole, I would take that as a large shift in public opinion. The balance of power has stayed in pretty much the same hands during my time in Illyriad, but the majority of people with said power appeared to have finally had enough of what they saw and decided to do something about it. I hardly count that as betrayal, especially since none of your confeds declared war upon you. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Chaos Armor
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 00:33
| I would suggest this http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-history-of-illyriad-incomplete_topic3293_page1.html" rel="nofollow - thread if you wish to learn more about The History of Illyriad. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 01:29
You want to talk opinion? Lets go a little deeper.
And it will work exactly the same when history repeats itself. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:07
Of course HM! Your enemies are fueled by hatred and possessed by penis envy. Why else would they be fighting you? Obviously H? has never ever done anything which would prompt so many to unite against them  ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:08
|
Flawless rebuttal. I am defeated. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:21
|
I'm well aware that in terms of active participants on this forum, I am
essentially preaching to my enemy's choir. It is for the sake of silent
readers and outsiders to the conflict that I speak - for those who actually wish to learn something
and have, as of late, found great difficulty doing so amid the noise. Well now I've done the onerous task, and this is the part where I drop my mic. Feel free to continue squabbling amongst yourself. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:22
Nope, you did that all by your lonesome self ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:32
HM, even with the danger of repeating myself and for the sake of unbiased history, I must correct the point about actively gathering forces to push you around. I just speak my recollections as a leadership member of former Consone, so this might just be another biased version... After the Valar war, many alliances were in fear they might do anything wrong and end up being the next opponent to H?, so some of them gathered together to become independent of this constant threat and do diplomacy without thinking what H? might say to any actions. Somehow, we ended up being bigger than H?, and that was all what might have been percieved by H? as pushing.
I can't recall any resolutions from H?, nor any promisses or explicite pleasantries from our part. As soon as the foundation of Consone was public, suddenly relations to H? went icy. Some small problems, like sov disputes, gathering incidents etc. got boosted up and it was hard to avoid direct conflict even at this early stage. Part of this problem (and highly criticized by H?) was our open structure, which seemed to make some of those problems even harder to solve. But from my point of view (extremely biased, as it is) there also was quite some provocing going on... Misbehaving is a strange word to use in this context, HM, and I'll try to ignore the nuances of meaning in it...
My honest thanks to finally being able to read this black on white, especially in this sort of history lesson. This fact had been denied far to long.
As to end my corrections on some peaceable note, it seems both sides to this war acted on similar motives: Both wanted to defend against a threat they each persieved as imminent. It is rather sad, that exactly this caused the (at this time) biggest war ever.
|
Posted By: Juswin
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 02:32
|
I wonder where is the truth in all that. Don't forget how the Great Trove War started. Oh, "started" means "was orchestrated"! ------------- It may be that you are right. Then again, you may be wrong. http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/57903" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 03:28
|
It's likely our relations with Consone alliances did in fact go icy
right as they went public, but this would be a corellation rather than a
causation - especially considering we knew about Consone for some time
before they went public. When they did, we were already ready with a
long-considered public response. But it was at the point of going
public that several participating alliances started using that freshly
announced power for not-so-subtle political coercion, and attempts to
resolve conflicts at a lower level immediately became much harder. When they failed, the next point of contact was Jasche, and quite frankly, he handled all diplomatic issues very, very poorly. His response to everything was vapid praise coupled with delay tactics, and he secretly gloated that he was masterfully manipulating us while in reality only pissing us off and making easily resolvable disputes worse. I use the term misbehaving because suddenly several alliances with limited experience holding power had a lot and in short order started having their character redefined by the least scrupulous of their members. Alliances misbehaved in that their behavior suddenly included things they'd not be doing or allowing to continue if they still had a healthy fear of reprisal. Up until this point almost any player could find safety in either a training alliance which would be defended by many large powers, or by joining such other existing powers. But suddenly most smaller powers weren't large enough to deter harassment from a power governed too loosely to reign in its own actions. The idea may well have been pure (though a couple key players directly intended the new power to be used against Harmless at least). But it was not a viable model for diplomacy or governance, especially without more experienced and mature leadership. Both anarchy and war were, unfortunately, inevitable. Some participating alliances were just caught in the crossfire, and we tried our best to get them to back down early and relatively unscathed. I do indeed openly admit that we used secrecy of alliance for entrapment. Frankly, I don't think this truth is half as bad as we looked to some when we in one swoop declared confederacy with the alliance being attacked and counter-declared on the Consone alliance attacking. Had we not been in secret confederacy, we'd be in violation of our own non-interference policy. It was the confederacy that legitimized our involvement, and only our other allies actually knew it to be a true, pre-existing alliegance. But I think it's important to note our confederacy itself was not a ploy against Consone. We were on a fast track to allying with them anyway, before their conflict with Consone arose. Then when it happened we kept quiet with the intention of letting an arrogant power bite off more than it could chew. We did not however set out to bait Consone into full-scale war with us, and in fact were shocked with how cavalierly the entire confederation insta-escalated a small conflict to all-out war against this tiny opponent. I'm not sure if they even noticed at this point some Harmless members had joined with the victimized alliance. (Almost no one knows this as it's a freedom rarely exercised, but while we have a policy of non-interference at an alliance level, our members actually have freedom to pursue conflicts at a personal scale and at their discretion. Players must have permission if more than one person is involved, and their support from the alliance is limited to none. We were always built to promote limited engagements, but they rarely happened because that personal discretion still had to fit in our code of conduct lest our members be deemed at fault and forced to make reparations, and fear of the great, mighty Harmless made just causes or significant external provocation rare.) What we did set out to do was let them pick a fight with a small, weak target which when attacked would grow in strength from our support, teaching the (expected few) participating alliances the danger that comes from bullying. We wanted the takeaway from that encounter to be that at any time a victim you're targeting could prove far less vulnerable than you presumed. But I won't blow smoke up your rear either. We couldn't have been happier when all of Consone declared war. We felt a large scale war was inevitable, and we wanted it to be on our terms, and Consone couldn't possibly have given us better justification at a time when they were no where near ready for the can of worms they'd opened. It also happened right when were were in the final stages of gathering adequate support to withstand them if they did come directly at us. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: BellusRex
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 04:09
This statement is perhaps one of the more truthful I've seen yet, but the entire post still doesn't come close to describing how engineered months before hand the whole Trove War was. I was told by an H? director as far back as July, months before the conflict begun, that H? would not let anyone threaten their control, and that they already had "at least 5 scenarios planned to bring down Consone" I cannot speak for other alliances, but EE did not enter Consone with thoughts of toppling H?, at least outside of tourneys where possible. The very disorganization of Consone should have alerted people to the fact that there was no grand master plan, just an idea that several alliances felt could be beneficial. A critical mistake was made in announcing Consone before any methods of coordination and viable communication had been established, or a formal understanding of just what Consone was or was not could be made to all of it's members. I have no personal knowledge of any incidents of "bullying" HM refers to. They may have happened from some individuals. At the time I discounted them, as I knew H? was merely waiting for a pretext to break Consone as their director had stated. They certainly were not part of any plan shared with us. With that said, I actually had no problem with H? acting against what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a threat to them. In time Consone could very well have been a threat. Strategically, they were totally correct to hit us while weak and unorganized. What I objected to and found so offensive was all the spin and outright deceptions they put out through the whole war as to cause, motivation, etc... ------------- "War is the father of all things..." |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 06:26
Wow. I've no record of that particular statement being made, but even if it was... We play smart, but you give us way too much credit if you think we ever had that level of influence and five different plans for your destruction. We had one plan to engage Consone with the intent of training it in the art of diplomacy and hopefully exposing its destructive leadership. It was the threat Consone posed to Illyriad's community values that brought Crows and Harmless together (where previously we'd regarded each other with healthy respect and been on very friendly terms, but felt confident in our ability to face any foe that arose alone). So that would, I suppose, count as plan B. So, two plans total: one plan to guide Consone to maturity through limited conflict, one fallback plan to prevent Consone from destroying us through superior firepower. But only one plan where dismantling Consone was even anticipated. We are older, mature players who stick to a code of honor, not Machiavellian masterminds with fingers in every pot in the land. If that statement was real, I'd wager it was largely bravado and downright bluffing. At this point I think it's safe to admit we were scared. EE as a whole may not have had designs on Harmless, but we had solid intel that at least one influential person in EE did, as did Jasche himself, and certainly plenty of previously defeated opponents were grouped into this single confederation. The tone of this conversation has been largely pleasant and focused on gathering information for posterity thus far. I'd like to keep it that way so perhaps this is one can of worms best left alone before it turns personal or fragments into a re-hashing of every war and personal grudge that may or may not have been a factor. Were we less afraid of what might come out of Consone, perhaps we would have read more into its disorganization - but we wouldn't have believed lack of intent sufficient to keep things from turning sour, as they were naturally going from the onset. Case in point, we knew Jasche had us in his sights, but we didn't think he wasn't orchestrating the already occurring conflicts. He planned on playing a slower game and fomenting conflict only after he'd more extensively influenced the participating alliances against us and built up a case for them to organize a more cohesive unified military structure. These were much longer-term plans than the immediate chaos that arose from Consone's mere existence. Even the immediate conflict wasn't something we particularly wanted - we knew Consone wasn't ready to beat us, but we weren't confident we were ready to beat them either. They did outnumber us quite significantly in terms of population or city count, and we didn't yet have a very good idea how far military prowess could compensate for inferior production capability in a large, prolonged war, nor know how many other alliances would rally behind us because of how they were being treated. But in the same vein, why wouldn't you have evaluated our intentions both in light of who we were and how we publicly responded? Our reputation and value system are pretty well documented - we've a pretty consistent history of happily finishing fights but not starting them, and despite being a military-focused alliance we have what is quite possibly the most robust, considerate, and fair diplomatic infrastructure of any alliance in the game. Heck, some of our greatest influence on the server has not been through force of any kind (even political coercion) but rather from leading by example: early newbie protection and care packages (yeah we led and possibly started that practice though it's since fallen by the wayside for us and become the signature act of others), creation of training alliances (obviously plenty of others took up this banner, but we created the first when the environment was far more hostile toward them), protection of training alliances including those with no ties to us - and less visibly: open sharing of treaty standards designed to prevent anyone from being drawn into an unjust war, holding our members to a detailed code of conduct, offering outsiders (both alliances and individuals) clear procedures for conflict resolution along with up front promises and specifics on what to expect, creation of an Embassy open to all and intended to foster wider friendly relations without expanding more formal political ties to a dangerous reach, etc.. When Consone went public, we didn't sit by and wait for it to fail or start a fire, nor did we attempt to sabotage them by fostering internal conflict. We carefully and promptly, publicly voiced our concerns in direct response to their announcement, and did our best to work/continue working with the member alliances (and, to our considerable frustration, with Jasche). Some advice was offered (and ignored or refuted as us trying to dictate), and I believe that was largely public as well. Within an official capacity, our actions and statements were, I believe, both consistent and amenable to a much less violent outcome. Frankly, had just a precious few key positions been staffed with wiser, more prudent players, it all could have ended quite peacefully. This is also why we really focused our the attention of our terms on a few key players. We felt they were largely responsible for bringing about a massive war which should have been unnecessary. Yes we are a military alliance, and yes we like a little war. But our history does indicate the limited extent of that like. Even in the White War our bloodthirst dried up when the threat to our survival evaporated. And remember Knights who say Ni? They were an ally who stood with us against White, but afterward they became quite aggressive and undiplomatic themselves - we fairly promptly broke off all diplomatic ties to them, and left them to fail on their own. Our Consone battle plans were a parallel development alongside more optimistic endeavors.
Of course there was certainly a major communication problem which was quite publicly visible during the war, and I alluded to it when I said "within an official capacity." That war had a ridiculous number of participants and everyone had something to say everywhere they could possibly say it. Consone was a very loose confederation, and many of the alliances who arose to ally with us were not well established either, but joining forces because of how they were getting treated by Consone members. The result was practically pure white noise from both sides. Armed with previous experience, we knew how destructive that kind of open dialog was, but many of our members with less experience needed to learn it for themselves. Few if indeed any actively meant to decieve or spin the narrative on our side and though it was really hard to see it that way at the time, I suppose the same would be true of your side. It really irked me when I saw Harmless members get drawn into an argument and end up saying something that was more rooted in their own misunderstandings or personal vendettas than the information readily available to them. And to top it all off, there were at that time actually still quite a few forum participants who were not part of the war. Back then it would never have taken weeks for someone to bother asking for an update on the largest war the server had seen so far. No, they were as vocal and opinionated as the actual participants. Whatever the root cause, a lot of slander and garbage went both ways, and I hated it. I think that was when my presence on these forums first sharply declined. But regarding things that were said and done in an official capacity, I believe we were very consistent in the problems we identified, the catalysts we predicted would cause war, and then our references back to those issues and requirements demanded during the war. For example, before the war we said Consone needed a better plan for conflict resolution that included consideration of the outside party, and the confederation needed to do better than blindly lend its might to however individual alliances chose to behave. The alliances just ignored the grievances of very small parties, and in other cases deferred all incidents to Jasche, who just swept them aside with platitudes and false assurances. During the war, we directly reacted to that by cutting Jasche out of peace negotiations because he was a major part of the problem, and holding alliances directly and individually responsible for their own future. The public debate was perpetually out of control - I can't begin to remember half the crap that flew around - but the few qualified to speak did earnestly try to stay on point with two equally valid justifications for our presence in the war: a pattern of failing conflict resolution, and direct full-scale war against our ally. Twas this latter point that was most subject to subversion, as every voice on both sides felt it needed to in some unique way embellish or even re-invent this point. A rare few of Consone voices had pretty coherent creative versions of the story based on how they perceived our secret and suddenly published confederacy, much as I previously described. A big part of the problem there was how few actually knew what was going on. Our part in the plot was largely managed in secret at a leadership level, and even for our own membership much was revealed later and then perhaps not adequately explained - often out of fear that sensitive intel would be accidentally exposed. I think you can see that in this war, we've done a better job of keeping quiet and avoiding such wholly unhelpful debates. I tend to operate somewhat as Harmless's unofficial spokesman, and even I am careful to speak up only occasionally, and only so far as to offer a little grounded/counterbalanced perspective for posterity. There is no war to be won on these forums, and the people who try to fight one here say more about themselves than their opponents. This is a conversation I can get involved in because so far it feels actually productive and informative. I like to think Harmless grew and matured from that experience, because if we haven't we'll give away a moral high ground that at this point should frankly be near impossible to take from us, and instead just look like sore, pouty losers. That, I suppose, is a good example of how one's position can so heavily warp how his words are received. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for how the consone debate went down. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 11:14
|
"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully. "Yes,"said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever." "And he has Brain." "Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain." There was a long silence. "I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything." Several of the alliances in old consone are not involved in this conflict. This is an easy time for anyone to attack Harmless to get their revenge. The way the current war is going, there is almost zero risk in attacking H. H's closest ally, Dwarven lords, claimed mineral mines as part of war reparations. Dlord now has more mines in Turalia than they have troops. What is stopping evil consonists from getting even with Dlord? Or even evicting Dlord from Turalia altogether? Your perception that H has been benevolent to their enemies, may not be true from the perspective of your victims. During the time consone surrender happened and peace talks were going tough, we even contemplated a scorched earth policy of exodusing cities to 1 food squares is Qarrosslan and leaving nothing for the vultures. With the practise of razing cities of surrendered enemies, H brought the game to a new low. You are reaping the fruits of your own deeds. TLDR, If consone were the kind of people you claim them to be(vengeful, greedy,..?), they would be pillaging H now than staying out of the conflict. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 11:25
Though I know your ressentments against Jasches diplomacy, I would like to have a try as to defend his motives, as far as I understood them. From my correspondence with Jasche I definitly didn't find any hard feelings against H? from his side, besides the above mentioned fear. Our all perspection was, that H? was searching for ways to have us start a war, which we tried to avoid at all costs. And this not only as we weren't prepared for one, but also as most members I talked to didn't want a war. We were casual players, after all, and noone wanted full time readiness caused by a war. A big problem for your and Jasches diplomacy had been the only vague idea of what Consone actually should be like. Basic idea was, that Consone ONLY should leap into action, when a member alliance is attacked in a way the single alliance can't handle alone, and ONLY, if this isn't the consequence of previous aggressive actions of said alliance. In this way, Jasche never wanted to be leader of Consone. His title was that of head diplomate, but he officially had no power on the politics of member alliances. Thus when sov disputes arised, Jasche simply was the wrong person to talk to, as he indeed had no official power on "peace-diplomacy" of e.g. WE or EE. So far the idea, as undeveloped and unorganized it might be. H? rightly criticized this concept as problem to adress problems at a powerblock level, but at this time we didn't think we had any. Then the "Trove mine incident" arised. And suddenly everything went wrong. It was hard even for me to get unbiased information on what was happening, and I only found out some time later, how it actually started. First info I got was that ABSA had sieges at their doorsteps due to some harvesting incident. OK, clear case: any member was free to help ABSA to ONLY get rid of the sieges, as to avoid damage to the towns while Jasche tuned in to find a diplomatic solutions. Three days later we were in full war with H? and noone could explain on how this had happened without a hidden plan.
I myself tried to do forum diplomacy... and found myself short of quitting the game soon afterwards! The spin in the forums was extreme from both sides. And unbiased information was hard to get. Trying to explain the peacefull intentions of Consone, I was kind of hit in the back by details of unfortunate "diplomacy" regarding the mine itself. Then the RES vs WE war flamed up and all our tries to hinder it to entangle with the bigger conflict failed. Again the Coalition called for Jasche... from our point of view again the wrong person to adress, as in normal circumstances it would have been no task of Consone along to our charta. ______________________________ Hope this confusing list of thoughts shine some light on the events from our point of view. Funfact here is, that both sides percieved the other's leaders as shemeing overlords =) |
Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 14:14
|
As quoting you is the thing now.....
I respect you for saying that. It was shockingly caustic. I'm not a player who has much time in RL to immerse myself in the political detail of Illy. I regularly read the forums, and this is the basis upon much of my perceptions are based. The amount of vitriol issuing from certain elements of your camp during the Trove War was shameful (I accept it wasn't exclusively from your camp - but it appeared to me that most of it was). And it is this that has painted the picture of H? in my mind - and I'm sure in others too. Hora has already stated how he nearly quit the game as a result, and we know other players did take that step. This time around, I can't help but notice that those particular elements have been leashed (apart from in the very early stages of this war) - which has resulted in a much more mature tone to the debate. With regards to Jasche, I just want to say that I always found him to be a thoroughly decent bloke, and a great leader of VIC. I never once got the impression that he was a power hungry autocrat intent on toppling H? When Consone was formed, we in VIC were not encouraged/instructed to amass great armies - in fact our primary focus was on trade, crafting and supporting new players. Surely, if we were intent on world domination, army building would have been our top priority (and in fact we should have been doing that before Consone went public). I now find myself once again at war with you (in a different alliance). Am I at war because I dislike you? No - that would be silly in a game where most people don't actually know each other. However, your previous PR certainly didn't put me in a frame of mind where I would shout up and say "hang on, these are really decent guys"..... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 16:28
|
Thanks, Cilcain, for backing up most of my points. Faults really had been made by both sides. It would have been easier, when I would have been able to paint black and white back then. Especially in case of the very start of the Trove mine incident, and later when the stuff around RES and WE started, we did do some major errors in negotiating. Though maybe the Coalition had some more experiance on spinning But also HM stated he had problems with the forum "debate", and he definitly has experiance in writing lengthy posts. Perhaps a wake up call to all players to keep at least some rests of respect for each other. In this current war I'm really proud of the playerbase, that many of the post are calm and informative (with some exceptions at the beginning...). Keep up this spirit!  |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 16:36
Quite right, and that is consistent with the whole problem that surrounded Consone. Many of the member alliances were not out to do evil in any way. They were just willing to become part of a greater evil by contributing their strength without realizing the responsibility that came with it. There is nothing so hazardous as joining a conglomeration where any one person's war is everyone's war without any loopholes or (extensively exercized) room for individual judgement of the situation. Harmless could see it ending very badly from a mile away, but just about everyone was shocked how quickly and easily it escalated. Several Consone alliances didn't want to be a part of the first war, and as a result we didn't want them to be either. The ones who just felt they were fulfilling their treaty obligations don't seem to have made much appearance this time around. It probably would not be productive to reflect on some of the unique factors which could be blamed for drawing some of the current enemies back after various previous defeats, so I'm biting my tongue here. Regardless, I've already pointed to what I believe are the other factors for this war, which take majority over revenge or at least match it. Harmless failed to grow and languished, falling slowly into inactivity. We've been at this for 4 years, and no one really sees much left to be accomplished or sought after. Our boredom led to inactivity, but other alliances have something to aspire to: replacing us. We don't see this primarily as a war of revenge, but one of opportunity that sought out and is using the support of those who want revenge. We'd still have handled it just fine if not for the enemy support from players/alliances who called themselves our friends and had once proven themselves to be friends, and it is that which makes us bitter. Everything else was just another round in the struggles that come from being on top, but this betrayal left whole accounts surrounded by once-friends being suddenly completely removed from the game. This is a level of military aggression completely unprecedented since the White War ended, and even in that only one ringleader was removed, at a time where no one had more than 6 months investment into the game. Now to be removed you need only be in the wrong place bearing the wrong alliance tag. Diablito never accomplished that level of brutality, though it was certainly his vision for the game. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 21 Feb 2014 at 22:00
| HM, you are slowly coming to a balanced viewpoint throughout these posts, respect for that. I would like to ask you the same question I asked KP previously, which remained unanswered. Will H entertain the decision to surrender? If they won't, then I don't see how you can argue the case that the force against you is just a bunch of bloodthirsty punks intent on destroying alliances and accounts for fun. What is the alternative outcome if someone refuses to surrender? Now I'm not saying you should surrender, I understand there is tremendous pride amongst the H brand but the war will continue until there is nothing left on one side if neither side will concede won't it? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 06:58
|
Mr Damage, my perspective may seem to be changing but it's not really. I'm simply opening up a little more because these last conversations will conclude my legacy here and I'd like to leave something besides the slander and vitriol that until now derailed any dialog. Of course I don't always think everything Harmless and its members do is perfect, but I am mostly satisfied that we conducted ourselves honorably. And in cases where that wasn't so, I did speak out - you just wouldn't know about it. Internally, we've always enjoyed strong mutual respect and intense loyalty, and that comes partly from respecting our peers and members - even when we disagree with them - too much to air out disagreements and dirty laundry in public. As to surrender, the way I see it is this: while I can acknowledge occasional (read: uncommon) missteps in past conflicts, in this conflict Harmless is in the blameless right, vCrow et al are in the wrong - and in a big, clear-cut way. Pride it may be, but to us surrender is equivalent to admission of wrongdoing in this war, of the variety that legitimizes their actions and furthermore rewards them for taking them. So no, as far as we're concerned it is not an option for us. We will not reward an enemy for winning an unjust war they started, but instead make that victory as costly as we possibly can. And then once truly defeated, we can walk away from the game with our hands clean of the matter, while the entire community is left to deal with the victor and the new landscape that creates. If we play our cards right, we won't even be around to say I told you so when entirely new social norms take hold and abuse of power is expected rather than speculated. Frankly, we've spent long enough absorbing verbal abuse and all the while just trying to show a better way to play and uphold integrity. Now if you ask for an alternative, I can offer a perfect one. Let those bloodthirsty hordes which started this war and brought about this chaos and destruction surrender. It is not our place to pay reparations for not having possibly been able to handle the situation any better or more honorably. Or at the very least, individual players could start taking a little responsibility for themselves and consider that there could possibly be reasons to leave a war besides direct personal loss. Heck, I'd be impressed if someone could just put a stop to the active combatants running and hiding in training alliances without actually surrendering or accepting terms. Of course the winning side backing down won't happen, so the intractable impasse remains. And I gave warnings at the beginning of this war, which so far show every sign of coming true. I'd rather not be here when that happens anyway. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 07:37
|
Not being willing to acknowledge mistakes and the effects of those mistakes might be part of the problem. Acknowledging your past mistakes and the harm they have caused might be a good first step toward reconciliation -- if in fact you have any interest in reconciliation. It seems from your post that you see no future for yourself in Illyriad. I have been in that place -- it certainly affected my decisions. I think there still can be room for all of us in the future of Illy. Harmless? is not perfect. Neither it is the cause of everything that is wrong. Perhaps some of the wrong lays with those of us who were content to allow Harmless? to "run things" (and take the blame for showing initiative). Crows, EE, Soon, Shade -- none of these alliances are perfect either. You are correct that the future will be challenging. Personally I think that the future of Illyriad will be brighter with Harmless? in it than without. Maybe there will be a time when those who have taken up arms will lay them down. I think indications that Harmless? and its allies have done some soul-searching and can acknowledge their past mistakes would go a long way toward creating that possibility. I expect to be roundly mocked and met with much derision for these views. Probably some people will see them as manipulation. It saddens me that we cannot trust each other as we once did. I hesitate to even post this because I am not looking forward to the scorn I am going to receive -- probably from both sides. Nevertheless, this is what is in my heart.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 08:00
|
Thanks for answering HM. Your perception of surrender is perhaps where the impasse lies and shall remain. Conceding defeat to an opponent is also a respectable way of ending battle. By your understanding of surrender, all those who have surrendered in previous wars were the ones in the wrong? Or is this definition of surrender limited to this war only? That is perhaps a conflict right there and can lead you to where this situation began to materialise. Personally I agree with Rill on one point at least, Illy will be a lesser place without Harmless and NC, just as it is without White and Black. So the future direction of Illy will weigh heavily on the victors and those who decide how to settle terms at the end of this war. This is a huge responsibility and I hope those who make these decisions can realise this when doing so.
|
Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 08:38
|
[QUOTE Of course the winning side backing down won't happen, so the intractable impasse remains. And I gave warnings at the beginning of this war, which so far show every sign of coming true. I'd rather not be here when that happens anyway. [/QUOTE] You may not wish to be here HM but many of your warriors who will fight to the end with you may. Isn't it time you thought of your colleagues too? |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 08:45
Why do you think that he didn't ask or that he doesn't know their opinions .?.  I'd sign under what HM posted every day of the week ... especially this part :
Though I admit that I will stick around and watch the show afterwards
 |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 09:07
That is not correct. The two alliances Harmless directly declared war on last time, are not involved in the current war. Those alliances who were fulfilling their treaty obligations last time - EE, Vicx (even 'World's End' and Valar indirectly) are at war with you now. You have a faulty theory into which you try to fit things. That is why you draw the wrong conclusions. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 09:23
|
Well Mr Damage, I can't think of any other case where war began (for additional
parties) after a conflict was adequately resolved. The Consone war had
similarities in that the catalyst was not the real war - only
representative of the underlying causes - but it ends there. In every
single case where Harmless has been involved in a war, something was
happening that needed to stop, and surrender was equivalent to making
that change under duress. The party that had to surrender was the party
that needed to repent from some past or continuing action: stop
harassing allied newbies in training alliances, don't try to claim
exclusive ownership of an entire province through force, take diplomacy
more seriously, take responsibility for the actions of your members,
stop defending an ally that needs to change and won't, etc. But here there's nothing to change, only a changing of the guard through violence. It would be an entirely different story if these aggressors had been willing to make peace with NC, but because they would not there is no honorable recourse but to stand by them. We aren't the ones who removed the option of diplomacy, so to what would we surrender except a pillaging of our resources and shaming of our integrity? We also cannot pay restitution when we are not at fault, therefore any surrender terms are purely profiteering (especially if there's no ongoing battle to later rejoin). If you really want to see the community degrade fast, watch what happens when war becomes widely perceived as a highly profitable venture. In order for us to admit defeat and concede the loss to our enemy, they'd first have to admit having goals already achieved. Thus far, the incongruity between their stated grievances and subsequent overturning of an initially-accepted resolution to those grievances leaves us with a war that continues in absence of (publicly admitted) objectives. If there's nothing we can change, and they don't stop on their own, then their objectives cannot not be corrective in nature and must also not be yet reached. The natural conclusion is that our complete destruction is their objective. Surrender would just be a brief pause for humiliation before continuing. Oh, but we (internally, at least) don't have to rely on that kind of speculation anyway. Between leaked intel and candid statements that would never be repeated publicly, we know bloody well what certain key players want, and it is quite incompatible with our survival in any meaningful capacity. If the enemy can admit their objectives, we can acknowledge whether they've reached them, and if our complete destruction is not their objective, then this should satisfy them. That's still entirely different from surrendering though, because the principle is simple: if you stand for what's right, then you do so regardless of the outcome. To surrender is to repent from doing the right thing. We simply cannot do that. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 09:25
|
Before the war Dark and Harmless were still allies and we conveyed to H? leadership our unwillingness to stand by while NC continued their campaign of aggression. The answer was always the same: any action against NC will result in full support to them by H? and The Coalition. When H? leadership declared war on EE they did so in support of NC and TVM and were beginning to make good upon that promise/threat. They actively supported NC and TVM aggression and have no real cause to claim the high moral ground. They expected to win this war as they did all those who came before it. They were wrong. While Illyriad and Elgea will be poorer without H?, NC, TVM and Dlords, if these alliances remain active after the war, they surely need to consider a major change in leadership. Arrogance fueled by past victories led them into very poor choices. They were not the benevolent rulers who HM is attempting to paint them.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 10:39
|
Nice post Halc, you guys are probably in a unique situation having been on both sides at different times. I feel there will be closer truths coming from Dark than anywhere else. HM perhaps if you adopt the same demands about revealing true motives yourselves then maybe the bridges of peace can be built. You cannot ask such things from someone if not prepared to afford them the same. H have their skeletons just the same as everyone else, who is prepared to admit to them?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 11:28
That latter statement is patently false. Perhaps you forget we still have complete records of our conversations with you regarding the matter - filled not with ultimatums but focused largely on bridging the gap between situational assessments and factual, historical evidence - spanning early August to early September before you abandoned the dialog. It then briefly resumed in early October with what appeared to be contentment/cooperation with our ongoing resolution efforts and ending with a plan to defuse the whole situation. Not to mention by the time we entered the conflict militarily, plenty of action against NC had been ongoing for quite some time and they'd already paid quite heavily for any fault they could have borne.
Indeed we did declare on EE in support of NC, because we were mediating and had just finished hashing out a peace agreement, which EE's actions intentionally destroyed. And even without that, nothing NC did deserved 25 accounts (at the highest point) getting dogpiled by literally hundreds of accounts. You perceived the situation differently than us, and it was apparent you were subject to some ground-level bias and opinions borne of incomplete (one-sided, and anecdotal) evidence, but maybe that's fair. No one can claim to have the whole story for sure anyway. However, it's one thing to deem the situation unworthy of your support and end the treaty. It's entirely another to join the dog pile under the flimsy excuse that Harmless shouldn't be trying to prevent NC's utter destruction.
Spending months in 3rd party talks trying to prevent escalation and diplomatically mediating almost to a successful resolution while our ally is under excessive attack is not the mark of an arrogant alliance presuming victory nor of one that had no care for what's right or where fault truly lay. By all means judge us by our actions. But at least present them accurately. It is because we took such great care with our actions that we can so confidently stand by them now. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 11:58
I don't believe I could lay myself much more bare here, and that openness has included Harmless's motives throughout. If I were to remove moral/character factors and boil our pre-war motives down to simple point form (in priority order), it would look something like this:
------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 12:15
NC had paid very little until now. It is their supporters H?, T-O, The Dark Star Dominion and TVM who paid heavily. If NC would have paid heavily without the interference of their allies, this war might have been a lot shorter and with less destruction.
Oh, they deserved it alright. If they did not, I suppose a lot less accounts would have risked a world war against The Coalition.
It was H? who ended our treaty when they cast us out of the confederated section of your embassy. (before the war).
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 12:15
I guess it is a cultural thing, but here switching sides makes you less reliable as a source and as a resource in any struggle ... imho that is the sensible thing overall, but I understand that other places in the world do not have the same historical experience with double-dealing and its consequences ... |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 12:20
Search your records again, you'll find KP and Kumo stating quite clearly that H? and The Coalition will back up NC. |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 12:28
There was never a contract between Dark and Harmless?. There was an agreement forged, to my knowledge, by Sisren who since then proved himself to be more an H? agent then a Dark member. There was a long period of similarity in interests and in values (or so we believed). When H? by their support of NC began to show that our interests and values are no longer similar, Dark attempted to see you end support of NC agression. When this too proved futile, it was clear to us that you no longer deserve our alliance.
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 13:51
After we declared on TVM, both NC and H? declared war on us. At that time H? was at war with no one, and NC was only at war with uCrow and Altair. They had hardly seen much action, let alone paid quite heavily for any fault. EE did not intentionally destroy any peace agreement, especially since EE and TVM had absolutely nothing to do with any peace agreement you were working out between NC and it's enemies. Secondly, I have our surrender agreement from the Consone war and not once does it state this 6 month mandatory peace that EE somehow broke. No one forced you to take action based upon our actions, nor were you in open confederation with either TVM or NC at that point. Thinking that you can control the actions of everyone in Elgea is what got H? into this mess in the first place. In the year and a half I have been playing Illy, any hostile action has been immediately followed by the concern that H? would step in and play police. Your whole argument that alliances should be allowed to fight their own wars without super confeds piling on is null and void based upon your actions that followed our declaration against TVM. You stated that we somehow broke our surrender agreement, but that is blatantly not true. -------------
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 13:56
lacing public diplomacy with namecalling and speculative characterisations has contributed more to the cause of this war than any specific action by an alliance. armies can be replaced and cities regrown, but these casual indignities cause wounds that only fester. |
Posted By: Gossip Boy
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 14:03
Maybe this one was one of the faults H? developed over the time. Atleast your enemies say so and so does your ex-allies and maybe unconsciously you are also saying the same here. ------------- Elessar2 [08:34]<Rill> when you've just had part of your brain taken out, you lack a certain amount of credibility <KillerPoodle> I can say anything I like and it is impossible to prove or disprove |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 14:26
You were part of that agreement. The contract was as implied as any confederation, you are just too blind to 'get it'. You agreed to it, and were with it just as I was. Dark was treated as an equal, and the only time Harmless directed us to do anything was when Dark took more than 3-4 cities from any 1 player (which happened more than once). As for being more an H? agent than a Dark member, you sure are full of the BS. It was you and Dumiel's alt that made mention that I lost touch with what is good for Dark, which left me to first stand aside, and when I could no longer abide what was going on in-alliance leave. I had always been for Dark. I tried to help with the relationship by joining WoT which also broke down due to Dark's leadership, and tried to work on the relationship even after joining Harmless. I attempted to reach out to both you and misterdark, only to have the door again slammed in my face. It was by no works that I did that broke down the confederation with H?, nor the one with WoT. You seemed to be set on a course which would not be altered. Do not attempt to besmirch me and the allegiance I had to Dark at the time, people that I worked with outside of Dark are well aware of the works I did for you. That strong allegiance that was there, you and Kompanion helped fill with repugnance. Thanks for continuing the friendship though. Nice to see you spouting the truth. As far as H? supporting NC, it was not as direct as you lead us to believe. H wanted you to help with peace between NC and Bane, not escalate it. Again, you were set on an unalterable coarse. H did not want to intervene in that mess, but rather than talk with harmless and NC as friends, you chose something else. You chose other friends. That H? feels Dark betrayed them is only in that they were taken into confidence to which any counsel and advise were actively ignored. I worry for your current allies. Dark has a history of breaking confederations... Nightbringers Wheel of Time (since reforged) Harmless... I guess Valar Crow and EE are next? ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 17:04
False. It was you yourself who chose to step down from Dark's leadership after the only thing I said to you was "I don't like this Sis" - I said this btw after you agreed that Dark must lose a mining city to NC just because they didn't feel like sharing. After saying that I didn't like it, I nevertheless supported your decision and allowed NC to capture a Dark town without resistance.
Damn, you found us out. After this war ends Dark will immediately move on Vcrow and EE. You hear that Ditto and Hath? The Dark is coming...
|
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 17:08
Now there is something unbelievable ... if people stepped down that easily there wouldn't have been any alliance leaders left in the game ... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 17:30
|
DARK is coming??? /me checks cities phew, at least it will take them a long time to get here
|
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 17:35
|
Since this conversation appears to have some semblance of honesty, I'll pitch in and offer some sincere thoughts on how this whole war developed. The opinions/perspective are my own...
Here's a review of some key events which led to the conflict...
Various Crowfed rooks approached H? with concerns regarding NC's behavior, while asking for help in mediation. Unfortunately our requests were not taken seriously and there was no mediation.
We approached H? again expressing strong reservations about NC's actions. Sadly we were turned down yet again, and this became the turning point for vCrow/uCrow as we saw that H? had turned their backs on us in refusing to acknowledge our concerns, and did nothing to help ease the rising tensions. A major war was inevitable...
So these are just some of the crucial events which triggered the current war. I'm still 100% convinced that it could have been avoided, had H? simply helped ease tensions or distanced themselves from NC.
When was this exactly, and which of your allies was under excessive attack? ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 17:59
| I beleive he means that NC was under excessive attack. I already stated that I disagree with that and consider that NC was not under enough attack when H? chose to join on their side. |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 18:29
last 2 things before I stop reading this... 1 - we have your altered reality of the events, and we have the truth. You are right, it would surely have taken me something as simple as 1 town in question to step down. You got me there I guess.... sorry, i guess i should go back to sipping your cool aid. is it still laced with LSD? cuz laddy you are seeing things that aint there. 2 - the record stands on it's own. Dark has made those confederations and then broken them for stupid and petty reasons. so suck it up buttercup. ;) For the record, you have said some rather harsh things in the past about hath. maybe he should be concerned about the backstabbing, lying partner he has... /shrugs do sveedanye e sbasibo bolshio ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 18:58
|
Posted By: Chaos Armor
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 19:06
It seems to me that H? followed their policy here. They saw no reason to interfere, so they kept out of it. This policy has been preached by many to have been broken consistently. The H? Police, as many of you say. Yet here you stand marketing that H? did not wish to police another alliance? Even entering into third party negotiations would have meant that H? would have had a hand in the conflict. I'm sure if they had someone would be accusing them of having their harmless snoot (see what I did there?) in business where it doesn't belong. It's hard to have a fun party when the said participants are set against having fun. Meaning, H? will never be the good guy because many players have been brought up to dislike them. When I first joined Illyriad (back in 2011), I was under the impression that all games were like Stronghold Kingdoms. I had finally had enough of playing it. In Stronghold Kingdoms, there was several worlds and on each world there was always one dominant house that controlled the server. On World 2, my parish was destroyed simply because we were an easy parish to take in a largely fortified Yorkshire. When I joined Illyriad, I immediately began reading the forum. I was interested in the history of Illyriad and the world that it was outside of what I had heard from the Dwarf Fortress forums. I took a disliking to H? because they appeared, from reading the forum posts at the time, to be the same as House 2 in World 2 of Stronghold Kingdoms. They were repressive (think Monty Python and the Holy Grail) and had the most power. That opinion changed after I read more into the annals of Illyriad's history and talked to many players. I think a great many new players were also influenced by the anti-Harmless? rhetoric going on at the time and have since grown comfortable with the knowledge. Not daring to challenge the status quo. Make note, I do not believe that H? is perfect or blameless? (see what I did there?). I do, however, fear change. I've been comfortable with H? in "rule" and would really not like to see them go. I think, that if the... (whatever you call the forces against H?) ... were to offer peace without any conditions then all would be well. But rarely in war is the winner going to offer fair terms. And lastly, Praise be to Armok! [Many many's were used in the creation of this post.]
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 19:19
Only after you made it clear you were going to escalate. As we've discussed (and I proved with quotes plus dates and times) the sequence of events was as follows: 1) Dark decided to side with Bane. 2) Dark came to H? with their decision already made and demanded that we do something about NC "or else". 3) H? tried to negotiate, Dark refused to budge. 4) Dark confirmed they were going to escalate. 5) H? responded that we would have no choice but to defend our ally. 6) Dark wimped out and Bane surrendered. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 19:19
|
The conversation has shifted to bickering over details which we're mostly
prevented from putting to rest by publicly sharing factual evidence, and
started to become just another argument. This is my queue to withdraw. Cheers, all. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 19:23
+1 overall, but if you do not mind my pointer this scene from another Python movie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso is a bit more accurate imho |
Posted By: Tamaeon
Date Posted: 22 Feb 2014 at 21:04
Both Kumo and KP did it, and as far as retractions go... I haven't seen any. ------------- "How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned." |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2014 at 00:53
Unfortunately your defences have gone back up and we are back to the PR regimen. The reason we are here is a result of many previous moments where the wrong choices were enforced. H have done a lot right and deserve full credit for that, but unfortunately they have done plenty wrong to various groups/people over the journey also. I still maintain, H and NC are needed, its a pity you can't acknowledge defeat by a superior opponent this time. Reparations are a load of crap but the precedence has been set by yourselves. I agree with your later post HM, this thread has reached the point of futility, carry on.
|
Posted By: Merlinus
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2014 at 09:35
Hi! I'm new here. I just became a player to this game. (I mean, like a week's worth! You know? n00b, right here, comin' atcha.) Also, for purposes of clarity and fair play, I hope my posting info will also inform that I am one of the newest members of the Toothless(?) Alliance. Make of that what you will. What I make of it is that I am entirely too new to this game, and these lands to have what is generally referred to as "standing" in this discussion, or in these wars. As a new player, whose ink is not yet dry on his forum registration here, I also stand as witness. I come to this game from LoU, an online game which is going dark shortly. As you may have noticed, there are just a whole bunch of players from that game investigating (as am I) this one. The potential for new players in this world is palpable, as many, many thousands of comrades, allies, aliances and yes, even adversaries look to Elgea to begin again, or to continue in many cases, their gaming personas. I am neither their spokesman nor their Ambassador. I do not speak for them, for LoU, for EA (or for EA's heirs and/or assigns). I do not speak for Illyriad, or for Toothless(?). I merely choose to initiate my right as a player (no matter how new and completely ignorant) of this game. It is not now, and has never been the case that "moral high ground" in any endeavor, much less an online, web based, free-to-play browser game is of equal interest to every player of that game. It should be understood and expected that some playing this (or any other game) do so for their own (different) reasons. I have played games with internet "friends" who set out to create a negative persona for themselves, an alliance, a sphere or realm--with no intent other than to dominate it. (A ton of those players are in LoU, btw.)That is their goal--their only goal, and they do not shy away from that goal due to some fear of insulting someone else's altruistic morality. Some do, in fact,develop their personas in such a way as to feed on just such a notion. So far as I have seen, that is not now, nor has never been (to my reading of history here, anyway) an acceptable standard of gameplay here. Frankly, I have been that player. I have been the victim of that player. I do not like that player. I do, however, understand and accept that player's existence. I do not want that player and their poison to infect this world. I want a community unified against them, and a force capable of dealing with them to the point of their elimination from this land. It would seem as though this game has one such entity with a consistent history of living up to those standards this community has established for itself. It's quite strange, indeed from my spectator's pov that they should be pilloried because of such a reality. That's what I want. Yet, at least for the few days I have been birthing myself in these lands, it has seemed to me as if there is a community standard here that I do find very appealing. In fact, that standard is why I chose to register as a member/player of this game. That standard opposes the player I have described. That standard requires an enforcer of sufficient capacity to withstand the coming assault upon it. Did I happen to mention how very wearisome it is to begin again...again? What really did it for me was when I read a sequence of posts by the player/leader of this land, who gave fair warning to every player that inactive gameplay was no longer acceptable, and that inactive players, alts and alliances faced eviction...shortly. Holy meltdown! That act could have been seen (but I may be naught but a biased software developer) as a server cleanup. That may have been a generating purpose to the act, in fact. However, what I did not anticipate was the nearly universal appreciation by this community for that action. And that's why I registered. Perhaps in server time, this is an old game. In reality, it is but a small, wee child. Yet, there are those who have been playing since the original release date who have not only identity but affinity with, and within this community and its standards of fairness, justice, and civility. Those, too are precedents of what most gamers would readily admit to be gigantic proportion. Given the timeline of this game, to have established and fought to defend those standards so consistently says much about the game, and the community which feeds it. What I choose to do insofar as my gameplay (or not) here has, I would submit, relevance within this community because, as my new alliance has told me, there are standards which do not change here. You may be surprised to learn that I know a few (thousand) gamers. I communicate with them...often. What shall I say to them? I've only known one other alliance leader who ever, EVER has done what I have seen done here. I am not yet certain, but I do believe he is actually a player of this game, as well. He would really hate it if I were to mention his name/persona/affiliation in this (or any other) game. We worked together for several years to build an alliance that didn't last, but whose community still does. What shall I say to him? What questions should I ask of him as I observe this conversation playing out? As I think of that, and imagine vainly that I know him well enough to anticipate his replies, I believe I can safely surmise what his responses would be. That only matters to me in the fact that his is, at least for me personally, a treasured opinion I would both seek, and respect. I've known him well enough as an online gaming enthusiast to see his consistency across many games, and many years. All this matters not one iota to any of you. I understand that. But, I do stand witness to what you say here, and to what you do in this game that I now inhabit, and of which I now share custody . That should matter to you. It has been said here that "Perspective is framed by motive." I share that view. I'm a big boy, an elder feller in fact. But, I'm sure you know that already. (I may not be the oldest player in this game, but I'll guarantee you I do qualify to fit into the Senior(s) Division.) If you should feel shame at reading my words, do something about it. Asking anyone to publicly admit allegedly wrongful acts or insincere intentions for the purpose of anything is simply bad form. Piling on is simply bad form. There is no honor in stuggling for seniority atop the moral highground unless that is where you live, and where you belong. You know if you do, and you know if you don't. If you do belong there. live fully and completely there, no matter how unappreciated your toil or the weariness you feel. That's the rent you pay. If you don't belong in such an august address, nothing you say or do will entitle you to it. Leave it. Don't go near to it. Respect is not demanded; it is commanded. It cannot either be purchased or usurped, and remain legitimate. It is earned, daily and cannot be cheapened except by its own. Honor does not wither, and no amount of saying otherwise makes it so. Just know that potentially hundreds of thousands of completely disenchanted and disenfranchised gamers are actively looking for a new home. Very few of them will believe the standards this community has set for itself, or how vigorously those standards have been, and are today defended. It's a lot like somebody deciding this would be a persistent game: in-credible. Civility? Fraternity? Loyalty? Generosity? Shared community, and no "win"? Who in their right mind would want any part of that as an online, free-to-play gamer, after all? Me. Precedent set. n00b spouts his pie hole. See? That wasn't such a hard thing to do. Precedents are easy to establish--or even change. It just depends on what your motivation is. You wanna win? You wanna be right? Win me. That's what Elgea looks like. And, yes. I really do know the difference between standing for what you truly and deeply believe to be the right thing, and yet another juvenile attept at a power grab. Count on it. Been there, and bled all over the T Shirt. I gotta tell ya. Right now I'm really pleased with my alliance decision. Proud, in fact. Button-poppin' proud as a newly plumed peacock, in fact. Not because I agree or disagree across this poison-inducing conflict. I'm a n00b. I've got no dog in this fight. But, as a n00b it's not this fight I'm interested in. It's the next one. I hope to be counted present, because I really have taken a shine to a lot of new friends, across many alliances here in only a few days, and have seen by direct experience those same community standards lived out personaly. Do I support, endorse or encourage such behavior? How could I? I'm just the n00b. ------------- In Peace we reign. In War we RULE! Long live the Royal House of Merlinus! |
Posted By: scaramouche
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2014 at 16:54
|
wow merlinus...a long post...and to be frank I nearly fell asleep half way through it, still not sure what your point was, maybe that's just my fault for being tired...welcome to the world of Illy. ------------- NO..I dont do the Fandango! |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2014 at 18:09
|
Merlinus, may I take it you're liking Illyriad? The rest I really didn't get. You really can write well, and I'd like to introduce you to the "Travellers Tale" section in this forums. But in here most people are used to short to middle length posts. Above it really gets hard reading them, especially when using a language with so many wrinkles as you do .And welcome to Illyriad, of course
 |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2014 at 19:30
| Thank you for your post, merlinus. I agree with you that the spirit of Illyriad is special and in need of protection. I don't believe that it needs one dedicated enforcer. Rather, I believe that there are many large alliances in Illyriad who have proven themselves able to step up as able custodians of this role. Harmless? is an important part of that -- one of many parts. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 00:17
Ahh - but we are the evil empire while you are the good guys - so you should be able to do things "better" rather than just copy all the things that were complained about our behavior previously. If not then you are just as bad as you claim we are and your justification for war went out the window... ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 00:39
|
Merlinus, as a gamer from many all-out, non-stop war games I have to agree with you. The community standards here kept me playing and I consider Illy to be my retirement home. Let all your gamer friends know that a new map, that will double the size of this world, is suppose to come out soon... |
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 00:40
|
Not sure how but I seemed to have missed this whole thread till now. Id like to address 2 points. First- Id like to respectfully agree with half of what John Luis posted as the initial tale of history. That is that the parts he told seem relative and accurate. White company and black company were bad for illy, they were evony players who enjoyed farming newbs and H? acted as the white knights that eventually defeated them. My issue with the post is the amount of history you skipped where H? wasnt always the white knights with the clean plate. As a member of Consone in its initial stages I know they were not set up to be a powerblock threat geared to rule the server and push aside the powers that be. H? viewed them as a threat and Consone made it ever so easy for H? to pin them as a target and pursue war. Consone did have scenarios where members would boast about being a Consone member and they developed a all for one, one for all mentality even when they were in the wrong. Second is this gem:
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 00:51
|
KP, its probably time to open the curtains fully and view in the cold light of day whats happening. You are losing a war. It is a new emotion for most of h?, but one you had better come to grips with reasonably quickly. h? has not helped thier confederates to any degree that would make a difference. Your rhetoric was only valid when you were on top of the heap. h? was formed in 2010 and established the newb protection! Kudos, this is why it is the game today, but listen up , nothing's changed, newbs are still protected by everyone in this war. We all like the premise and stand by it. That will nevr change! But its 2014 and h? has been the only alliance involved in every major war! You have added nothing to your "legacy" since you were created. I am at a particular advantage as i have already been on the losing end as the leader of the last alliance left standing in the Consone war. I am already in touch with thise emotions, and now i see you in the same place i was 12 months ago. Sincerely hope that if you ask for peace it does not involve the launch of 127 armies to attack you! Sound vaguely familiar? ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 01:27
|
And KP, if you are wondering about the justification for this war (note: we do not need one)you need only to look at your past actions. You know, the ones Kumo is apologising for! (Kudos Kumo) ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 02:08
|
Hath, Why are you so anxious to secure a surrender? I don't get it. You wanted war, you have it. Let's war. If we wanted to surrender, we have ditto's number. I think we have been clear. It's not happening. Suck it up buttercup. /shrugs Maybe you are tired of this? Maybe you need peace more than we? Whats up with that? Maybe you should ask for peace if you can't stomach what you wanted to taste? ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 02:19
|
Sounds more like advice to me, honestly. I don't think Hath is in any hurry here. Merlinus, I would suggest that your perspective here may be somewhat obscured. Spending a couple weeks in the game in the sister alliance of one of the principle combatants is not going to give you a clear idea of the histories at play.
|
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 02:22
|
The treatise isn't short and neither is this discussion. I feel cheated. :-( |
Posted By: HATHALDIR
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 03:07
|
Yeah therein lies your problem Sis, I will be handling h?'s surrender terms alongside dittobite. So you go back tp being a midlist flunky and let those of us in leadership handle things. As your alliance is wont to point out on several occasion, directors make the decisions, membership follows them. And 18 months is very optomistic vision for your long term vialbility! ------------- There's worse blokes than me!! |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 03:39
Context leaves a bit to be desired but anyhow. Basically, I dont agree with reparations but i'm not part of the negotiating party. Secondly as stated, you guys set the agenda for peace previously so you cant bemoan the same being asked of you. Irrelevant I know, because you wont be conceding regardless. |
Posted By: Merlinus
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 03:43
Thanks for the honor of wise advice. Had it not been for the five consecutive days of reading every item in this forum, as well as others, I would not have said nearly as much as my wall-o-text yielded (very rare for me, tbh) above. "I will keep brevity as my watchword henceforrth." (That's Churchhill's advice, not mine. But I'll take it.) ------------- In Peace we reign. In War we RULE! Long live the Royal House of Merlinus! |
Posted By: Sisren
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 03:50
|
Auro - the actions speak louder than your words. We are continually begged for a surrender that we do not want at this time. It's not advise at this point, its harassment. If you are so desperate for peace, try a different approach. ~regards Aurodan Hath - you poor fella. I feel so bad for you lil feller... However, If you want to proceed to insults, we can travel that route, so let's not be bastards. We can be polite. :) You do remember what manners are, right? Or did you miss that lesson in life (as well)? Or is it beyond your intellect to grasp the concept? I know its some big words here lil feller, but please do try to act civil, m'kay? OR - is your intention to have (another) thread shut down? We can just ask GM Luna to do that for free, without you being petty. K? And we don't talk with you, we talk with ditto. period. ;) Your post show just how little you understand this enemy you call H? You keep asking us, begging us for this... but still we fail to see why. You can have your war and suck it too. All my best hathipoo, Sisren ------------- Illy is different from Physics- Reactions are rarely Equal, and rarely the opposite of what you'd expect... |
Posted By: GM Luna
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 04:00
|
And that's why we can't have nice things. Luna ------------- GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|